Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2025

Girty v. Paradigm Collection LLC

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:23-cv-03239
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Girty v. Paradigm Collection, Judge Westmore struck Paradigm’s answer, ordered default, and vacated deadlines because the LLC lacked counsel.

Who this affects

Paradigm Collection LLC, whose answer was stricken and against which the clerk was directed to enter default; John Girty, who was ordered to file a motion for default judgment within 60 days after default was entered.

What happened

In Girty v. Paradigm Collection LLC, John Girty brought an employment case against Paradigm Collection LLC. The company’s lawyer withdrew, and the company did not obtain a new lawyer by the court’s deadline.

Girty asked the court to strike Paradigm’s answer because the company was unrepresented and to direct the clerk to enter default. Paradigm did not oppose the request.

Judge Westmore granted the motion, struck the answer, and directed the clerk to enter default against Paradigm Collection LLC. The court also vacated the remaining case deadlines and ordered Girty to file a motion for default judgment within 60 days after default was entered.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Girty v. Paradigm Collection LLC · No. 4:23-cv-03239
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
May 21, 2025

Background

John Girty filed an employment action against Paradigm Collection LLC. Girty filed the second amended complaint on December 22, 2023, and Paradigm filed an answer on May 28, 2024.

The court later allowed Paradigm’s attorney, Jon H. Freis, to withdraw. Paradigm was given until November 4, 2024, to obtain new counsel and have that lawyer file a notice of appearance. The order states that no counsel had appeared for Paradigm by the time of this ruling.

Motion and Analysis

Girty moved to strike Paradigm’s answer because Paradigm was an unrepresented limited liability company. He also asked the court to direct the clerk to enter default. Paradigm’s opposition was due March 31, 2025, but no opposition was filed.

The court explained that a limited liability company cannot represent itself in federal court and must appear through a lawyer admitted to practice before the court. Because Paradigm failed to obtain counsel after its attorney withdrew and after the court ordered it to do so, the court found that striking the answer and entering default were appropriate. The court did not decide the underlying employment claims in this order.

Ruling

Judge Kandis Westmore granted Girty’s motion to strike Paradigm’s answer, and the answer was stricken. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter default against Paradigm Collection LLC. It also vacated all remaining case deadlines and ordered Girty to file a motion for default judgment within 60 days after the clerk entered default.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.